tv [untitled] July 4, 2012 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT
>> i never direct anybody to attack or not attack. >> share of, is it your testimony that on december 31, after you and your wife returned home from that trip to the restaurant, there was no argument at all in the house? >> my wife and i did not go to the restaurant together. my wife went to the restaurant on her own. >> i am talking about this lunchtime trip to the restaurant in the van on december 31, were you turned around in the event. >> there was no argument in the
house. >> none whatsoever? >> none whatsoever. >> and it was your testimony there was no physical contact in the house. >> no, not on welcome to -- not unwelcomed. >> your testimony, there was no pushing, pulling, or grabbing in the house. >> none, no. >> just a single grab by end the ban. that is your testimony. >> objection. >> sustained. >> sheriff, after you were convinced -- convicted and sentenced, the mayor met with you? >> yes, he met with me twice.
>> there is a meeting you had with the mayor where he gave you a choice. he said you could resign or you would be suspended and he would initiate misconduct charges against you. >> that is right. i am sorry, i misspoke. when i said it twice, i met before and after. >> sounds like when the mayor gave you the choice, that was after it was the second of those two meetings. >> that is correct. >> and that meeting was act -- after you are actually sentenced them on march 19, your sentence. >> yes. >> and that second meeting with the mayor when he gave you the choice between resigning or suspension was after you were sentenced. >> that is correct. >> after that time, you had been convicted.
>> sentenced, yes. >> convicted and sentenced. you are on probation. >> yes. -- you were on probation. >> yes. >> and it was the very beginning of your three years probation. >> yes. >> you had let down the sheriff's department. >> yes. >> under those circumstances, wasn't the honorable thing to do to resign? >> objection, irrelevant. >> a chief law enforcement
officer can certainly testify to what is considered to be honorable under the circumstances. >> i will allow the question. >> that is a hard question, and the answer is a hard one, too. i believe that, given the choices that had been presented to me by the mayor, i did exactly as i should. >> nothing further. >> thank you, counsel. >> redirect. >> may i request a five-minute recess. >> actually, that is probably a good idea so we can
>> are the microphones on? ok, please proceed. >> good morning, commissioners. i will try to keep my questions brief. sheriff, i would like to take you back to the morning of december 31, 2011. you testified earlier that you had an argument with your wife. can you tell us, what was that argument about? >> it was about an impending trip that my wife, eliana, had informed me of that she was going to take to venezuela, potentially a rather long trip.
and this is not an unfamiliar discussion that we have had in the past because of previous trips that had taken place. >> and why did you become upset? >> i became upset because of the trip that took place about five to six months earlier where my wife had taken our son, which i was very supportive of, was under the impression that that trip would be for several weeks, and it turned out to be over two months. and that is not the first time that that had happened, and i was sad and scared to be without my family and be without both my wife and son. >> why is that? >> well, i think for any -- at least for myself, any parent, i
mean, i love my family and i did not want to be without my son for that long period of time. >> wide is talking about your son of said you? -- why it does talking about your son upset you? >> objection, lack of foundation. >> i am not sure actually got upset. i will abstain the objection. you mentioned you testified that that morning you became upset. you had an argument about a possible trip to venezuela. >> well, my wife had declared -- i am sorry, i should let you finish. >> what was it about that particular argument, what was said that made you so upset?
>> of experiencing the loss and separation again for an undetermined period of time of how long we would be a part. this springs from a previous quarrel that we had and longstanding conversations about long trips abroad where she would take our son theo and it would be a lot longer than had been initially agreed upon. >> and prior to the morning of december 31, 2011, had you discussed with your wife another trip? to venezuela? >> in a general way, yes. in a general way, but it was only in that morning on our way to lunch had informed that there was an impending trip. >> what was it about that particular trip at that time that made you upset? >> well, we had discussed and
argued -- and wanted to make sure that there was a plan. this was something that i spoke with in correspondence e-mails with my wife last time that they were in venezuela, that we would have a plan as to how long, you know, there would be this separation for, and i had been concerned as a parent not knowing the previous trip, all the immigration issues and custody issues that had been involved win another parent takes a child for a long period of time, and i was really insisting, hoping that we had a plan about what the duration of time would be. that was the body of the argument. >> how do you feel about what happened on december 31, 2011 and now? how do you feel about what you
said and did? >> i wish i could turn back the clock, of course. i fear -- i feel horrible, ashamed. just all that. >> let me move forward now, sheriff. we have heard testimony about conversations you had with ms. linnette peralta haynes, your wife, and others. let me ask you very directly. at any time did you dissuade anyone from any law enforcement investigation? >> never. >> at any time, did you ever ask anyone to destroy any evidence? >> never. >> thank you. we have also heard testimony about your weapons that were turned over to law enforcement. let me ask you first, how did you store those weapons? >> the two semiautomatic, at
the six and the beretta, they are -- their slide chambers were completely setback. they were neutralized by a lot of tape. there was never ammunition in the weapons themselves at all. and it were completely immobilized from being of any use, and they were stored in a cabin vent -- cabinet in a storage room that would take both the padlock and a bald what, two keys, in order to gain entry. on at the smith, it was an open a cylinder, no ammunition, a taped so that the cylinder would not be -- so that the cylinder cannot be engaged, so that, again, they would be rendered neutralized. >> thank you.
at any time after your address in january -- arrest in january, at any time, did you have control over those weapons? >> objection. >> do you understand the question? >> yes, i believe i do. >> overruled. >> i had no control and no contact at all with those weapons. >> thank you. going to move on now to -- i believe that your inaugural, you testified earlier that you used the phrase at some point during the media interview or conference, you used the phrase "private family matter" in its reference to what was happening to you at that time. what are your feelings about that now. >> objection, relevance. >> overruled.
>> naturally, i completely regret that i said that, and i made a mistake. i made a terrible mistake in saying that. it was not in the context of what i had meant, and went the statement that was given to me, i should have rejected the statement. >> thank you, sheriff. i am going to move on. only a few more questions. sheriff, between the time that you were inaugurated, for those couple of months that you were acting sheriff, what did you accomplish as sheriff? >> objection, relevance and beyond the scope. >> what did you accomplish as sheriff? >> i will hear argument. >> part of the mayor's
allegations is that the sheriff cannot possibly be sheriff because he is not capable of performing the duties of the office. however, given what the sheriff was able to accomplish while sheriff, that is certainly relevant to that argument into those allegations. >> the argument regarding performance of sheriff does not go to whether he can perform the basic duties or make any certain accomplishments. the argument regarding the duties of share of it goes to the relationship of the duties of sheriff. the basis for our charges is not that he is ineffective or that the sky will fall if he is reinstituted. the basis of the charges is that he fell below the standard of conduct, and his conduct was also in relation to the duties of the office. >> if i sustain this objection, you're going to maintain the position of whether or not he can perform the duties -- and his effectiveness on the job
going forward is not relevant to this investigation. that is what it sounded like you just said. >> commissioners, i do not want to engage in line-drawing on this issue. i know what our position is going to be, but i will give them an opportunity to put in the evidence that they feel they are making it. >> so you are withdrawing your objection? >> yes. >> do you have the question in mind, sir? >> again, please. >> at the time that you served the city and county of san francisco as sheriff this year, what did you accomplish? >> a great deal. it is, i think, a long answer, but i will do my best to synthesize. i was inheriting a department that had been well-led by my predecessor, sheriff mike
hennessey, who had been the longest-serving elected in the history and county of san francisco, 32 years. there had not been an open election for a share of, so there was a great period of transition. part of that transition was my making staff changes and promotions of both deputy sheriffs and civilian staff. making constant rounds to all of our properties, both within san francisco and in san mateo county. being able to change policies so that i would have a more inclusive administration of lower ranks that had been previously included in budgetary decisions and policy-making decisions. preparing the sheriff's department for what was now becoming the first full year of
state prisoners realignment, as propelled by assembly bill 109, and had begun a number of projects that would really elevate our ability of having in custody and post-custody rehabilitation programs, building on the success of the mike hennessey administration in ways that had never been experienced before in san francisco. for example, i had two very incisive and in-depth meetings with mimi silver of delayed see street. we had prepared for the beginnings of starting the first ever reentry potter in the san francisco county jail, where there would be a lateral or reentry program so that we would speak effectively against the highest incidence of residences -- recidivism that usually occurs in the six months after
being released from jail, so our relationship would be piloted in showing what a pod will look like for people would be supervised by delancy st. administration. i was very much looking forward to that pilot project taking off. the second would be with sage, an organization which i did authorize where there would be monies allocated to sage and starting a caseworker program on a part-time, so that women who are then exiting the county jail system would then be welcomed by a sage case worker so that they would not necessarily go back into the sex worker prostitute industry, and therefore they were being exploited or harmed in any particular way that the sheriff's department within involve itself in assisting them so that it would not return
to that lifestyle. the third was i was in longstanding conversations with adult probation chief and the city and state about involving a dedicated reentry pod. we were negotiating the reentry pod and what population of offender it would be four and a negotiating whether it would be women only or men. and that is where i had left the discussion. we were preparing the beginnings of the budget, which the previous-year budget before i took office was approximately $171 million, but this is the first year where the city is beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel of previous five-year budget deficits, where i was going to advocate vociferously for better realignment programs that would be more effective in reentry. i also sent several letters,
both to the police chief and to the mayor and to the city comptroller, about the deputy sheriffs elevating their role in the larger construct of public safety. i believe that we could have saved the city and county money by seeing the division transfer of what is known as the station transfer unit that is now under the governance of the police department to the sheriff's department, because the deputy sheriffs are paid approximately 23% less than the sfpuc officers, and it is a routine action -- sfpd officers, and it is a routine action, and they know they can be alleviated from that by freeing up a police officers so that the sheriff's department would pick that up as well. i also -- >> sorry to interrupt the witness, but i think we have quite a narrative here, and i would rather proceed with question and answer.
>> please. again, i am directing the sheriff so they can -- and that they can tell who is making noises, we have to remove you from the proceedings. thank you. i agree that it is better by question and answer, so the objection is late though, so i will overrule it. but for our benefit, it would be helpful if we can proceed a little more by question and answer on this. >> thank you, commissioner. >> as i prefaced, i will do my best to synthesize, but it is a long -- i believe i was saying about presenting the idea to the mayor, police department, and to the controller in ways of saving money, but also talking about the role of the deputy sheriffs and their credentials of being peace officers and the city's limits of having a deficit of sfpd officers.
there was an opportunity to augment where staff was short period that can be from the routine duties of monitoring inmates at san francisco general, for example, or the courts, where the police would be alleviated from having to do that. because overtime is something the city is quite challenged by. and the math would be well-saved by the sheriff's department. and i went as far as to talk about what is unpopular, ways that we can help with community policing, where i think it is poorly practiced in san francisco, something that, as a supervisor, i spoke about quite vociferously that i think that our department could have held assisted with, and so on. there's quite a bit more that occurred in his first two and a half months. >> thank you. you mentioned that you sent letters to the police chief and
others. you mentioned that you had conversations with the probation in chief. were you able to work effectively with those individuals? what's the objection, calls for speculation. >> overruled. >> yes, and i would say, in terms of the messages they sent me, that only supported and affirmed, i think, the fluid relationship that we had, even while i was engaged in the process at the hall of justice. >> thank you. sheriff mirkarimi, do you think you can continue to be sure of the city and county of san francisco? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. based on your previous representation of your argument you're going to make. >> yes, i do believe that i can,
and i believe that i can quite effectively. i realize the of a battle that has now been laid in front of me -- the uphill battle that has now been laid in front of me. and probably to the eyes of everybody, it would seem almost next to impossible from somebody in my position to try it to rise to that standard. but i campaigned, and i always believed as a supervisor and even before that as a nine-year member of the district attorney's office, as a graduate class president the san francisco police academy, that what makes san francisco special is that our forward-thinking approach when it comes to public safety and criminal-justice, and was very outspoken that in my administration, part of that acknowledges the idea of what a power of redemption may look like. never in my wildest dreams did i think i would become an example of what that redemptive process could look like, but at least -- but i believe as share of,
somebody has gone through this process that has been well and high-profile throughout the country and abroad, and that certainly sets the challenges before me this somebody who is now seen both sides of the aisle, i think helps in a way that people will just open up their minds, can serve as an asset, and what it means to speaking to some of the strengths and weaknesses of the criminal justice system. and the people that come to the county jail system and the people that are in charge of working the county jail system in the city and county of san francisco all have one goal in mind, and that goal is that we hope that those people cannot return back to the county jail system that are incarcerated. i think that if we are, i think, put to the side of dehumanizing people that are inside that jail system and that we're cognizant of the fact that our objective is to do everything we can so that we do not see a repeat offenders, then i think i, as the sheriff, who has had a
career in law enforcement, who has fought hard in this city as a supervisor who took a district with one of the highest homicide rates for 20 years and brought it down with the cooperation of both city and law enforcement and community, that helps prepare me to continue to be, i think, one of the best sheriff's i can possibly be, as i was voted to be for the people of san francisco. >> thank you, sheriff. thank you, commissioners. we have nothing further. >> i will give some limited recross, but within the scope of redirect. and not more time than he took. >> sheriff, when you were describing one of the ways that you think you can be a good share of, you mentioned that you have gone through this process.
do you recall that? >> yes. >> and when you talk about having gone through this process, are you referring to the criminal justice process? >> and the whole experience, yes. >> ok. well, that criminal justice process involved, initially, a charge, correct, on january 13? >> yes. >> ok. >> and then, you were sentenced -- you were convicted and sentenced in march of this year. >> objection, we have been over this. >> ok. >> you mentioned, having gone through this process, the criminal justice process with regard to what you did on december 31 is not over. are you done with the process with regard to what happened on december 31? >> objection.
>> overruled. >> are you referring to probation? >> you are still on probation. >> yes. >> so you're not done with probation. >> no. >> you are still in your mandatory 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling. >> oh, yes. >> and the process of redemption does not happen overnight, does it? >> no. >> and you are aware that the official misconduct provision of the charter does not have a lifetime ban on employment. it is a five-year ban. you are aware of that, are you not? >> i am sorry, i am not. >> ok. sheriff, he mentioned in the list of some of the things that you had been doing in the two months that you were sheriff, being involved in reentry and preparing for realignment. do you recall that? >> yes, i do. let's ok, and that is an area
where you need to collaborate with other criminal justice agencies. >> yes. >> you have to collaborate with the district attorney. >> yes. >> public defender. >> yes. >> two adult probation. >> yes. >> with the courts. >> yes. >> and you are negotiating important issues with these other law enforcement agencies. >> and contracts, potentially. >> which agency will take certain responsibilities. >> yes. >> which agency is best positioned to undertake certain responsibilities. >> yes. >> these are all things that you are -- that reentry at realignment require you to work with your peer agencies as an equal. >> yes. >> ok. you're subject to the jurisdiction of the san francisco adult probation department. >>